Bacon v. Rose
This text of 593 F. App'x 249 (Bacon v. Rose) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Adrian Nathaniel Bacon appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for appointment of counsel and the court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Bacon’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Bacon’s pending motion for appointment of [250]*250counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bacon v. Rose, No. 7:13-cv-00350-JPJ-PMS, 2014 WL 4462946 (W.D.Va. May 1, 2014; Sept. 10, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
593 F. App'x 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bacon-v-rose-ca4-2015.